### FILED JUNE 29, 2017 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
V. JOSHUAH STEPHEN CARON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 34209-3-111

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FEARING, C.J. -Ajury convicted Joshuah Caron for violating a no-contact order thatprotected AngelaThompson, when Caron sent apackagethrough the mail to Thompson'stoddler daughter. On appeal, Caron contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction. We disagree and affirm. FACTS Joshuah Caron and AngelaThompson sporadically dated and cohabitated from 2009 to 2015. When therelationship commenced, Thompsonhad two children, J.T. and B.T. Duringthe courtship, Thompson bore H.T, the biological offspring o.fanotherman. WhenH.T. reached one and one-halfyears ofage, Caron and Thompson'srelationship ended.No. 34209-3-III State v. Caron
On June 10, 2015, after Joshuah Caron and Angela Thompson's courtship ceased,
a trial court issued a domestic violence no-contact orderprohibiting Caron from direct or indirect contact with Thompson. In pertinent part, the trial court orderedthat Caron: B. do not contactthe protectedperson, directly, indirectly, in person or through others, by phone, mail or electronic means, except for mailing or service ofprocess ofcourt documents through a third party, or contact by [Caron]'s lawyers. Ex. 1. The order listed Angela Thompson, but nother children, as a protectedperson. Caron signed the protection order and understood its requirements. OnJune 19, 2015, Angela Thompson received through the mail a package addressed to H.T. The return address read simply 

### "J." Report ofProceedings (RP) (Feb. 16, 2016) at 59. Thompson knew Joshuah Caron sentthe package because the address label was in his handwriting and the return address was Caron's sister's address. Thompson opened the package to find a towel, pajamas, photographs, and a letter. The pajamas fit no one but H.T. Thepictures showed Thompson, Caron, and H.T. The typewritten letter read: Dear [H.T.], Hi baby girl I love you...so much! I miss yourmama and Sissy and brother! I will love you forever no matter what I love all ofyou forever I would love your mama always & forever!!!!!!! I don'tknow iforwhen I'll be able to see u Ijustwant youto remember always you're in my heart you are my heart!!! I got you a couple pairs ofpajamas and a beach towel I hope the pajama fit you I hope you like them! There's also a couple ofpictures in the envelope and the bottom ofthe box Ijustwant you to have pictures ofyou and daddy! I'm so sorry the things are this way I wish it could be different, no matter what I will 2No. 34209-3-III State v. Caron



### Ex. 6. think [of] you everyday with every breath I take and I will never forget you maybe somedaywe can see each other again but

### I don't know when orif that will happenjust always remember everybody makes mistakes I'm not perfectnobody is!! I wish I could out ofmy hands right now I miss you all so much it's hardto breathe! I'll always be in yourheart no matter what happens and its notyour fault that things are the way they are! Love Always & Forever Daddy

The package and its contents saddened Angela Thompson. Joshuah Caron never sought legal parental status ofany ofThompson's children. PROCEDURE The State ofWashington charged Joshuah Caron with one count offelony violation ofa no-contact order against a family orhousehold member. The felony count requires proofoftwo earlier violations ofthe order. Attrial, Caron conceded he violated the no-contact order ontwo earlier occasions. The trial courtreadto thejury a stipulation concerning Caron's previous convictions for breaching the order. Joshuah Caron testified, during trial, thathe assumed the father role for Angela Thompson's children, including H.T. He "triedto assume the best father role [he] could because [J.T. and B.T.] had no father involved in their life at all" and he was the only dad H.T. everknew. RP (Feb. 16, 2016) at 65-66. Caron admitted that he mailedthe package, its contents, and the letter to H.T. Heprotestedthat sending the package to H.T.

3No. 34209-3-III State v. Caron
violated the no-contact order, since the order did notbar contactwith Thompson's children. During trial testimony, Joshuah Caron insisted that a package to a minor child constituted a package to that child, not someone else. Caron explained thathe sentthe letterto an illiterate H.T., with the expectationthatH.T. would read the letterwhen older. In the alternative, he considered that one ofthe oldertwo children, J.T. orB.T., would read the letter to H.T. Caron acknowledged thathe never sent similarpackages to Thompson's older two children, who could read without assistance. The trial court instructed thejurythat, in orderto convict Joshuah Caron, it must find the Stateproved five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) on June 19, 2015, a no-contact order applied to Caron, (2) Caronknew ofthe existence ofthe order, (3) on June 19, Caron knowingly violated a provision ofthe order, (4) Caron had twice been convicted ofviolating the provisions ofa court order, and (5) Caron's acts occurred in the State ofWashington. During closing, Caron admitted thatthe State proved all but one of the elements required for his conviction. He told thejurythatthe only question to answer
was whetherhe knowingly violated the no-contact orderby indirectly contacting Angela Thompson through the package sent to H.T. Caron asked thejury to answerthe question in the negative. Thejury convicted Caron ofviolating the no-contact order. By special verdict, thejury also found that Caron committed the crime against a family orhousehold member. 4

### No. 34209-3-III State v. Caron
LAWAND ANALYSIS The protection order favoring Angela Thompson banned Joshuah Caron from direct or indirect contactwith Thompson. On appeal, Caron contends that the State presented insufficient evidence that he knowingly violated the no-contact orderby indirectly contacting Thompsonthrough the package he mailed to her minor daughter. The State argues that sufficient facts permitted thejuryto infer that Caron knowingly violated the no-contact order. We agree with the State. Several statutes authorize no-contact.orders. The trial court originally issued the no-contact order against Joshuah Caron under chapter 10.99 RCW, RCW I0.99.050(2)(a) provides that a "[w]illful violation ofa court order
... is punishable under RCW 26.50.11O." 

### A person willfully violates a no-contact orderwhen he acts knowingly with respect to the material elements ofthe offense, including the contact element. RCW 9A.08.010(4); State v. Sisemore, 114 Wn. App. 75, 77, 55 P.3d 1178 (2002). Therefore, Caron violated the no-contact order ifheknowingly directly or indirectly contacted Angela Thompson. A criminal statute defines "knowledge" as: [a] person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when: (i) he or she is aware ofa fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or (ii) 

### he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense. RCW 9A.08.010(l)(b).


### 5No. 34209-3-III 

### State v. Caron
We recite familiar principles ofsufficiency ofevidence. Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier offact could find each element ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 

### State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980); 

### State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875,883,329 P.3d 888 (2014). A defendant challenging sufficiency ofthe evidence at trial admits the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom. 

### State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d at 883. This court defers to the fact finder's credibility determinations and determinations ofthe persuasiveness ofthe evidence. 

### State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). A verdict may be supported by either circumstantial or direct evidence, as both may be equally reliable. 

### State v. Brooks, 45 Wn. App. 824, 826, 727 P.2d 988 (1986). Ajury may draw inferences from evidence so long as those inferences rationally relate to the proven facts. 

### State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d 867, 875, 774 P.2d 1211 (1989). A rational connection must exist between the initial fact proved and the further fact presumed. 

### State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d at 875. An inference should not arise when other reasonable conclusions follow from the circumstances. 

### State v. Bencivenga, 137 Wn.2d 703,711,974 P.2d 832 (1999). Thejury may infer from one fact the existence ofanother essential to guilt, ifreason and experience support the inference. 

### Tot v. UnitedStates, 319 U.S. 463,467, 63 S. Ct. 1241, 87 L. Ed. 1519 (1943). Nevertheless, essential proofs ofguilt cannotbe supplied by apyramiding ofinferences. 

### State v. Bencivenga, 137 6

### No. 34209-3-III State v. Caron
Wn.2d at 711; State v. Weaver, 60 Wn.2d 87, 88,371 P.2d 1006 (1962). Joshuah Caron argues ajury could not reasonably inferthat he knowingly indirectly contacted Angela Thompson when sending a package to Thompson's daughter, H.T., because: (1) 

### the order only prohibited contact with Thompson, (2) the order did not list H.T. as aprotectedperson, (3) he addressed the mailed package to H.T., and (4) the package contained only items for H.T. He reasons that thejury could only have found knowledge by resorting to guess, speculation and conjecture. We disagree. Although Joshuah Caron addressed the package to H.T., Caron mailed the package to Angela Thompson's address. Caron knew orreasonably should have known that a three-year-old child would not retrieve the package from the mail box and that Angela Thompson would likely retrieve the package. Caron knew or reasonably shouldhave known that Thompson would open the package. Caron withheld his full name and his address from the package front, suggesting he did not wish the retriever to immediately identify the sender and thereby trick Thompson into opening the package. Caron knew that H.T. could not read his letter inside the package. The message and photographs sought to endearThompson to Caron and reestablish their courtship. Caron did not send
a similarpackage to the older children. From these facts, thejury could reasonably conclude that Caron intended to directly contactThompson, let alone indirectly contact her. Thejury could reasonably conclude that Caron's sole purpose ofsending the package to H.T. was to communicate with Angela Thompson. 7No. 34209-3-111 State 

### v. Caron
CONCLUSION We affirm Joshuah Caron's conviction for felony violation ofa no-contact order. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will notbe printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J.

8